How big a deal is the Romney campaign’s tax/penalty flip-flopping?

posted at 8:01 pm on July 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

Does anyone seriously care about this? I know we’ve written a bunch of posts about it — it’s the political story du jour so we’re almost obliged — but I can’t believe there’s a single voter outside the chattering class that’s following it. Think of all the things a voter has to know just to be able to keep up:

1. Massachusetts has universal health insurance.
2. The linchpin of that insurance program is a mandate requiring people to buy coverage.
3. The program was signed into law by Mitt Romney.
4. ObamaCare is based on Massachusetts’s program.
5. States can pass mandates requiring citizens to purchase things but it’s not clear whether the federal government can do so under the Constitution.
6. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government can impose mandates pursuant to its tax power but not pursuant to its power over interstate commerce.
7. Romney’s campaign spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said after the Court’s decision that he believes the mandate is not a tax.
8. Mitt Romney contradicted Fehrnstrom by saying that if the Supreme Court thinks the mandate’s a tax, then it should be regarded as a tax — even if he personally disagrees with that interpretation.

How many of those facts do you think the average low-information swing voter — the group that’s going to decide this election — is aware of? One? Maybe two? Bear in mind, despite the Court ruling having been front page on every newspaper in America last week, fully 45 percent of adults said afterwards that they either didn’t know how the Court had ruled or thought that they had struck down most of ObamaCare. That’s the level of ignorance we’re dealing with here. And yet we’re now seeing dopey navel-gazing in the papers and grumbling among some prominent conservatives about whether Romney should shake up his campaign staff, even though the guy’s within three points in the poll of polls. I can accept this being a one-day story, if only because it’s the slowest week of the summer and we need something to kvetch about it. But we’re now on day four, full in the knowledge that the voters whom Mitt needs to win the election are in a de facto coma when it comes to this subject. C’mon.

Besides, if you think this is a big deal and simply must have someone to blame, why blame Romney’s staff instead of the candidate himself? They’re not the ones who made RomneyCare happen. Philip Klein:

In April 2010, just weeks after the national health care law passed, I warned that if Republicans nominated Romney in 2012, it could kill the effort to repeal Obamacare, precisely because he wouldn’t be able to credibly attack Obama on health care. It’s something that I emphasized repeatedly during the primaries and discussed in my ebook on the Romney nomination. Had Republicans nominated any other GOP candidate, right now they’d be sitting back and watching Obama and his surrogates squirm in trying to explain why the mandate was a tax for legal purposes but still didn’t violate his middle class tax pledge. Instead, Romney’s struggles to reconcile the irreconcilable are complicating things…

It’s inevitable that any Republican holding or seeking office who attacks Obamacare’s mandate as a tax will be asked whether the Massachusetts mandate signed by their own nominee is also a tax. They shouldn’t feel the need to defend Romney’s untenable position, or to squirm uncomfortably when asked. Republicans can agree with Romney on repeal without having to make excuses for what he did in Massachusetts. A good answer would be something along the lines of this: “You never find a candidate who you’re going to agree with 100 percent of the time. I disagree with mandates at both the federal and state level and don’t support the Massachusetts health care law. But I do agree with Romney that Obamacare is a disastrous law for all 50 states and that it needs to be repealed. And that’s why I support him.”

This is all going to come to a head three months from now when Obama and Romney get into a squabble at one of the debates over one guy’s mandate versus the other guy’s mandate, and the press will wet itself over whether the exchange is a gamechanger and how Obama proved he was a fightin’ Democrat after all by putting Romney on the defensive and whether Romney should have hired a different debate coach, blah blah blah blah blah. And meanwhile, 80 percent of the people watching it at home will be thinking “What are they arguing about now?”

Speaking of taxes and penalties, here’s Romney suggesting that Roberts is no longer his model for a Supreme Court nominee. Exit question: Anyone think that Paul Clement won’t be nominated at the first available vacancy if Romney wins?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

History shows that the best defense is a good offense. The subject matter doesn’t necessarily matter. Ya think this might be one of those cases?

ManWithNoParty on July 5, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Not sure, but in any event I’m clearly not looking at this situation from the same angle as you are, rombot or no. And speaking of offense, I think it’s also safe to say that you and I find each other very offensive. Mission accomplished.

Sometimes you get the best critic from democrats, this from Fox news doug schoen (clinton advisor) about romneycare;

Schoen went even further. “Put directly, the campaign is rudderless, directionless, messageless, lacks a strategy, lacks a plan, and lacks an approach other than making the election a referendum on Obama,”

And this from Rupert murdoch

“The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it’s Mr. Obama’s fault,” the editorial lamented. “We’re on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that ‘Obama isn’t working.’ Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the president’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.”

Finally a little more from shoen

“When you’re running a campaign for lower taxes and the highest court in the land says that a measure is constitutional because it represents arguably the largest tax increase in American history —to deny that it is a tax makes little or no sense – whoever says it for whatever reason,” according to Schoen, who believes the gaffe is symptomatic of a larger problem.

“A tax is a tax. This is emblematic of a failure of the campaign to recognize they need a low-tax, pro-growth message — a vision for the future, and a strategy that is inclusive,” he said. “They lack everything they need to create a positive contrast to President Obama.”

If Romney were the kind of politician you rombots make him out to be, he wouldn’t need help from a bunch of semi-anonymous blog commenters. But wasn’t it upthread here, or perhaps on one of today’s earlier threads, where I was told these comments don’t matter anyway?

/PretzelLogicFail

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I think all pols have their online defenders, crappy ones and otherwise, and no, to some it’s not going to matter what is said (obviously). Not sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever.

How many listeners could a Madison Conservative and a gryphon202 have for christsake? Even the most hardcore whackjobs would get tired of listening to those two piss and moan after ten minutes.

lowandslow on July 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Maddy and I have already discussed this. If you want us to mock you, you’ll have to call in and say something enormously stupid. But we won’t be taking calls for a while until we have a proper infrastructure established; call screener, the ability to do hour-long shows, Etc. Etc. In the meantime, we will attempt to address some of the same issues that the bloggers here address, in a manner befitting a half-hour-long podcast/radio show.

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 10:45 PM

The proposed talk show reminds me of a sketch by Dan Aykroyd on SNL: “Telepsychic Ray”, a pseudopsychic with his own late night cable TV show. Aykroyd sat behind a desk with five telephones. He gave out the numbers :555-1231, 555-1232, 555-1233, 555-1234, or 555-1235, waiting for callers to call. The phones remained totally silent. In desperation, he kept repeating the 5 phone numbers and throwing out more and more outrageous “topics” to try to provoke the audience to call, with nary a response.

I think all pols have their online defenders, crappy ones and otherwise, and no, to some it’s not going to matter what is said (obviously). Not sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever.

changer1701 on July 5, 2012 at 11:48 PM

I wasn’t terribly articulate in my wording, but I was trying to point out that I figured rombots were saying at one point “blog comments don’t matter. Mitt doesn’t read them anyway” in a lame attempt to get me to shut up.

It may be a one week story, but it wouldn’t be a story at all if Eric Fehrnstrom hadn’t insisted on going on MSNBC and making that idiotic “it’s not a tax” statement. That clown needs to be reassigned to the campaign’s janitorial staff.

And am I the only one who expects Fehrnstrom to write a nasty campaign tell-all shortly after Romney fires him? He seems like the type.

The proposed talk show reminds me of a sketch by Dan Aykroyd on SNL: “Telepsychic Ray”, a pseudopsychic with his own late night cable TV show. Aykroyd sat behind a desk with five telephones. He gave out the numbers :555-1231, 555-1232, 555-1233, 555-1234, or 555-1235, waiting for callers to call. The phones remained totally silent. In desperation, he kept repeating the 5 phone numbers and throwing out more and more outrageous “topics” to try to provoke the audience to call, with nary a response.

bayview on July 5, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Again, I shall treat you with more seriousness than you deserve…

I’ll just say that I have at my disposal different and better promotional tools than I’ve had in the past. And if the quality of the commentary is there, the numbers will take care of themselves. I’m doing it because the cost is minimal, I’ve finally hit on a cohost whom I believe will be dependable and will gel well with me, and it’s fun. The rest is gravy.

I wasn’t terribly articulate in my wording, but I was trying to point out that I figured rombots were saying at one point “blog comments don’t matter. Mitt doesn’t read them anyway” in a lame attempt to get me to shut up.gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Oh no, these are the true conservatives, just speaking truth to power baby. And everyone would agree with them if they could just get their messaging right.
Remind of you of another political sect?

lowandslow on July 5, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Again, with the use of the word “conservative” as though it is some sort of derogatory term. You get pissed off for pointing out that Mitt isn’t conservative, and then you turn around and mock us by sarcastically calling us conservative. Real classy, Butch.

You get pissed off for pointing out that Mitt isn’t conservative, and then you turn around and mock us by sarcastically calling us conservative. Real classy, Butch.

gryphon202 on July 5, 2012 at 11:57

Oh is this some of the quality commentary you and Madison are going to dispense, since you criticize Mitt for not being a conservative you automatically are? That must mean that Obama guy must be one conservative sumbitch.

Most people here are treating you with more seriousness than you deserve.

bayview on July 5, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Right. Which is why every criticism I make of Romney is answered with an ad hominem or non sequitur. You rombots sure are serious. Severely serious, anyway. Why, you’re as serious as Mitt is conservative, and that’s severely serious!

Oh no, these are the true conservatives, just speaking truth to power baby. And everyone would agree with them if they could just get their messaging right. Remind of you of another political sect?

lowandslow on July 5, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Nobody want Romney to fail. We want him to destroy Obama and not go squishy if/when hes in office.

How hard is that to understand?

Spliff Menendez on July 6, 2012 at 12:01 AM

You rombots have such a hard time squaring the circle of how I could vote for Romney and yet be so critical of him, and yet you have no problem assuming that I want him to fail despite my willingness to vote for him. Christ almighty…

Well there’s a significant segment of the Republican electorate who isn’t buying the “Mitt is severely conservative” bullshit. Maybe you’d better spend less time attacking us and more time thinking about how to convince those folks who aren’t planning on voting for Romney at this point, cause Mitt sure doesn’t seem to care.

The cultists theme comes from you being personally offended by criticisms directed at Romney and his campaign team by people who say they will vote for him despite how we feel, but only because Obama hares America.

I understand you are a big supporter of Romney. There’s nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with the vitriol you send my way because I’m very very skeptical of what Romney tells me. I just don’t believe him. I cant take him at his word. You can. And on that we are just going to have to disagree.

Just try to remember we all want Obama gone, but we are also going to have to keep Romney’s feet to the fire and make sure he doesn’t change his tune if/when he’s elected. We have good reason to think that he will, I hope I’m wrong, but ignoring his faults wont help anything.

Spliff Menendez on July 5, 2012 at 11:44 PM

A lot of the criticism is directed at his supporters as well, which is what most take offense at. But yes, you also have a circle the wagons thing going on too…you see the same thing with every other pol or campaign. When you definitely prefer one person over the other and see people constantly dumping on them, there’s going to be a reaction. That’s not cultish, just a natural reaction to what is seen as counterproductive to what is ostensibly the shared goal (in this case, beating Obama). It’d be different if it were mostly constructive criticism, but it largely isn’t…just the he sucks variety. Great, but that doesn’t do any good, really.

Nobody is saying to ignore his faults. But nobody knows about them more than we do, and accentuating them to the point where it makes it sound as if the alternative is better? Eh, that’s a problem, imo. Holding his feet to the fire is great (and necessary, as it is with all of them), but he’s gotta get elected first.

Douchebag is not an ad hominem because “you’re a douchebag” is not being advanced as an argument. I am stating it as a self-evident truism. Calling me “pro-Obama,” on the other hand, which no rombot has yet backed up with anything resembling a fact, has elements of ad hominem, straw man, and non-sequitur all rolled up into one tidy little fallacious package. Even if I were pro-Obama, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with Mitt Romney’s status as “severely conservative.”

There is no flip flopping and if you can’t figure it out then you are part of the stupid crowd that Obama is playing to because the smart ones have already said “stick a fork in him”.

Amjean on July 6, 2012 at 12:06 AM

The problem is Mitt had to go out and personally contradict his senior advisor. That doesn’t demonstrate a well oiled campaign machine. And that is scary when Mitt is our only hope for bouncing Obama back to Chicago.

You rombots have such a hard time squaring the circle of how I could vote for Romney and yet be so critical of him, and yet you have no problem assuming that I want him to fail despite my willingness to vote for him. Christ almighty…

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:02 AM

If you’re going to vote for the guy, great. If not, please stop pretending that you are.

How hard is this to figure out as far as your comments are concerned? Sheesh, others have explained this ad nauseum.

As I mentioned 4 pages ago, your schtick is getting old, which is applicable now more than ever….

More delusional ranting, just because people point out your jackassery doesn’t involve Romney at all, it’s about you.

lowandslow on July 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM

I have been called “pro-Obama” and all sorts of slanderous things, apparently all in the service of advancing Romney’s journey towards the White House. Take a good look in the mirror before you accuse anyone else of jackassery for pointing out that Mitt Romney is not conservative.

Most people here are treating you with more seriousness than you deserve.

bayview on July 5, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Realize that the lecturous, whiny, thorough idiot you are dealing with, who never graduated high school either intellectually or emotionally and who has no irony detector about himself, is completely shameless about the double-standard he has for himself about personal attacks, and the one he has for others.

You need to fast-forward your life to live in the present and stop wishing the DelawareRepublican primary would have turned out differently. You’re so full of yourself, you’re probably going to pop like a balloon soon.

gryphon202 on October 23, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Good job with the ad hominem, CWgryphon202! You didn’t even make an effort to conceal it this time!

Who gives a damn about what this or that group thinks? People regularly cite the American Conservative Union’s ratings of politicians, and they’re similarly meaningless. Anybody who supports government, at ANY level, forcing citizens to buy something is not conservative.

MadisonConservative on July 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Technically true. However wrong here.

Anyone who supports forcing Hospitals to treat patients for free is also not conservative. But that is where we are and no one is suggesting we not be here.

Conservative is about being self reliant. Now the best option would be to let people beg for help when they get sick and have no insurance however that is not where we are. Charity is how they should be treated.

To ignore reality is not conservative. Reality is we will not get to government not forcing hospitals to treat free loaders. Question then is how to handle this.

Well a mandate is about the only workable solution. But that is not what this mandate is. This mandate does not pay for the expected insurance cost of the person paying it. No this mandate pays for the expected cost of those in a much higher risk category. This mandate really is a tax on the middle class to pay for medical cost of those that either make very little or choose not to work at all. It even will pay for those illegally in the country. That is what makes it not conservative.

So a mandate could well be conservative. But mandates vary greatly. Hospitals are mandated already to treat for free.

Even if I were pro-Obama, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with Mitt Romney’s status as “severely conservative.”

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Talk about strawmen, who here has been saying anything about Romney’s conservatism or Romney at all for that matter? Is this some of the high quality commentary your two listeners can expect from your podcast?

So a mandate could well be conservative. But mandates vary greatly. Hospitals are mandated already to treat for free.

Steveangell on July 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM

There is a federal law that says they must. It is not conservative because it IS, in fact, government screwing shit up. Just like it always does. ALWAYS. Government screws up, and what’s the first thing the politicians call for? MORE GOVERNMENT! And there is nothing to suggest that Romney will be any different than the rest of the Republican establishment flinging around the “repeal and replace” bullshit.

Some of you need to get used to the FACT that Gov. Romney will be the GOP candidate. AND he will be the smartest person running for President this cycle. In fact, he is probably one of the smartest people to have ever run for President.

He also has a great record of success in turning around a state government as well as taking the SLC Olympics from disaster to resounding success.

SO . . . maybe we should quit trying to beat up Gov. Romney and start making sure that BO doesn’t get a second term.

Talk about strawmen, who here has been saying anything about Romney’s conservatism or Romney at all for that matter? Is this some of the high quality commentary your two listeners can expect from your podcast?

lowandslow on July 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I have, low. The whole goddam thread. Every last criticism you see of me from a rombot started with my accusations that Mitt Romney is progressive, said he was progressive, and has behaved like a progressive. For that, I am stupid, “pro-Obama,” and I ought to shut up and not criticize someone that I’ve said I’ll vote for. As far as I’m concerned, the entire question is about Willard Milton Romney’s fitness for office, which I find lacking as opposed to an objective standard. On the other hand, we have to play the hand we are dealt.

And as I said upthread, if I have the choice of voting for a progressive who virulently and violently hates America, or a progressive who doesn’t…it’s a helluva dilemma, but that’s the choice. We don’t have a conservative to choose from. But God forbid we should actually be honest about that. You are either completely in the tank for Romney or you are completely in the tank for Obama. Or have you missed what MOBYWithoutAParty has been badgering me about?

More delusional ranting, just because people point out your jackassery doesn’t involve Romney at all, it’s about you.

lowandslow on July 6, 2012 at 12:10 AM

You can always tell the nutty ones by their choice to make snarky, anti-intellectual personal attacks when they’re asked questions about themselves instead of taking the easy path to simply answer them – they’re hysterical paranoids with delusions of persecution by others…

Some of you need to get used to the FACT that Gov. Romney will be the GOP candidate. AND he will be the smartest person running for President this cycle. In fact, he is probably one of the smartest people to have ever run for President.

He also has a great record of success in turning around a state government as well as taking the SLC Olympics from disaster to resounding success.

SO . . . maybe we should quit trying to beat up Gov. Romney and start making sure that BO doesn’t get a second term.

Voter from WA State on July 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Shut up, he explained.

No thank you, Voter. You can kindly take your collegiality and shove it firmly up your poop chute.

A lot of the criticism is directed at his supporters as well, which is what most take offense at.But yes, you also have a circle the wagons thing going on too…you see the same thing with every other pol or campaign. When you definitely prefer one person over the other and see people constantly dumping on them, there’s going to be a reaction. That’s not cultish, just a natural reaction to what is seen as counterproductive to what is ostensibly the shared goal (in this case, beating Obama). It’d be different if it were mostly constructive criticism, but it largely isn’t…just the he sucks variety. Great, but that doesn’t do any good, really.

Nobody is saying to ignore his faults. But nobody knows about them more than we do, and accentuating them to the point where it makes it sound as if the alternative is better? Eh, that’s a problem, imo. Holding his feet to the fire is great (and necessary, as it is with all of them), but he’s gotta get elected first.

Anyway, I’m out. Night all.

changer1701 on July 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Fair points all. I can only speak for myself and mu criticisms of Romney are meant to be constructive. The “he sucks and that is all” theme is counter productive, I agree. And I take offense at being lumped in with those folks as that’s not my angle.

I feel his campaign leaves a lot to be desired. I pray that changes. I’m worried sick that Obama will be reelected and I see low hanging fruit that Romney appears unwilling to pick sometimes.

People who rely on snark and think that’s some sort of sign of their maturity/superiority need to be shunned here at HA.

Just think about how much more smoothly threads like this could go if there was a concerted effort by the normal people here to ignore them – the only ones who wouldn’t be happy about that are the disruptive, contentious morons who childishly seek personal attention through negative means! :)

Some of you need to get used to the FACT that Gov. Romney will be the GOP candidate. AND he will be the smartest person running for Presidentthiscycle. In fact, he is probably oneofthe smartest people to have ever run for President.

He also has a great record of success in turning around a state government as well as taking the SLC Olympics from disaster to resounding success.

SO . . . maybe we should quit trying to beat up Gov. Romney and start making sure that BO doesn’t get a second term.

Voter from WA State on July 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM

To be fair, we heard the same mantra regarding Obama 4 years ago. Romney definitely has some big bright spots on his resume, there’s no doubt about it. But he’s also got some gut wrenching blemishes.

It’s the rombot modus operandi, don’t you know. Gotta circle the wagons and all. Right Changer?

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:27 AM

It’s upsetting to be called stupid for no reason, sure. But I think it’s mostly because we are all posses about the direction of this country. Some people need to fond new ways to unleash their frustration beyond attacking teammates.

No one is reading this thread at this point, but that ain’t gonna stop me from expressing my individuality.

Clement should not be nominated without hard scrutiny. He’s a hired gun, a fact that shouldn’t be obscured by the string of conservatives who have recently hired him. When he was working for the gub’mint, for example, he defended the United States in Gonzales v. Raich (2004), which is the Wickard v. Filburn (1942) of our time in terms of the illegitimate expansion of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.

No thank you, Voter. You can kindly take your collegiality and shove it firmly up your poop chute.

gryphon202 on July 6, 2012 at 12:21 AM

You are really a piece of work.

Guess what . . . your candidate is not going to be nominated, no matter who he or she is. Throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to do you any good. People will quit reading anything you post.

It has nothing to do with “shutting up” . . . it has to do with getting Obama out of the White House with someone who is smart, articulate and has worked with an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled legislature and reduced government expenditures. Before you judge him as harshly as you do, maybe we should give him a chance. Gov. Romney wasn’t my first choice. I first wanted Pawlenty, then Perry. But now that I know more about Gov. Romney he has my 100% support.

Does anyone seriously care about this? I know we’ve written a bunch of posts about it — it’s the political story du jour so we’re almost obliged — but I can’t believe there’s a single voter outside the chattering class that’s following it. Think of all the things a voter has to know just to be able to keep up:

Very valid questions about the complexity of the issue, but I don’t know that it makes any real difference. You don’t have to understand all the issues to see Romney flip-flopping from saying, “It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty,” to “Well, it’s not a penalty, it’s a tax.”

Since this creates the impression of Romney changing his position, the complexity burden will all be on Romney to explain why he changed his position. If he can’t explain it satisfactorily, he looks slippery.

The better question to me is, how much will it ultimately matter? I think it will create a lasting impression of dishonesty on the part of Romney, which can’t be good, but I’m not convinced it will be a major issue down the road.

One thing is for sure: Romney will have to come up with a concise statement of how Romneycare is totally different from Obamacare. If he can.

To the so-called conservative purists who hated McCain and now hate Romney:

Every time you bad mouth Romney… you take a stand for Obama.

Because that is the choice… Romney or Obama.

If you think someone else was better, you failed to convince me, or enough others that that was true. So it is just possible you were wrong.

And it is possible that Romney is exactly the right person at the right time.

But reguardless, he is the nominee, and now the choice is Obama or Romney.

What is your choice? You hate Romney, obviously, and you refuse to reconsider that haterd… therefore, you support Obama. You claim you are conservative, yet the choices you make say otherwise.

You may claim otherwise, but your refusal to fully support McCain gave us Obama in the first place… so your record as a conservative is non-existent. You are fake. You claim one thing, you do another. You work against your stated goal… and you have all kinds of reasons, they all end with a Communist in the Whitehouse.

You can complain about Obama til the cows come home, but he is there because you wanted him more than you wanted to support McCain. McCain wasn’t “conservative” enough… now our country is nearly gone… and it is you who caused it.

And Obama will be there destroying our nation some more if you continue your haterd of Romney.

It is your choice… Romney or Obama. The only choice is Romney or Obama. And voting alone isn’t enough.

You undermine Romney now and strengthen Obama… and beating an incumbent is nearly impossible… if you give even a smidgen of strength to Obama with your words now… who is to say when the opportunity to beat him will pass? When the accumulation of the negativity towards Romney cannot be overcome?

And Romney said exactly what you all said. He doesn’t agree with the ruling. He thinks it should have been unconstitutional… and not transformed into a tax… you all said the same… but somehow he is criminalized. How hypocritical can you be?

I choose Romney. Too bad I will have to live with your choice, if you once again choose wrong.

Very valid questions about the complexity of the issue, but I don’t know that it makes any real difference. You don’t have to understand all the issues to see Romney flip-flopping from saying, “It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty,” to “Well, it’s not a penalty, it’s a tax.”

Since this creates the impression of Romney changing his position, the complexity burden will all be on Romney to explain why he changed his position. If he can’t explain it satisfactorily, he looks slippery.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 6, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Riiight, as opposed to obama and his campaign who sound incredibly intellectually honest and consistent by comparison when they rationalize it (spin it, really) something along the lines of : ‘ just because SCOTUS says it’s a tax, does not make it a tax, even though the IRS is going to collect it as a tax, it’s not a tax’ :)…’also, forget that our lawyers argued in court that it’s a tax, actually it is not a tax’ :)…yeah, I can see how this logic and consistent argument will go so well with the indie voters while they will be appalled, I am telling you appalled, at ROmney’s flip-floping on the ta-penalty issue :)… Byw, he did not flip flop at all, he did say tha he agreed with the con justices and not with Roberts’ legal contorsionism,but he accept the decision of the SCOTUS tha it is a tax…what is he to do, start criticizing the Court, like Obama did after the CItizen United decision?? What good would it do, it would be an exercie in futility at best..he said he accepts the SC ruling that it is a tax and moved on with his campaign…what else is there for him to do/explain…

When someone reminds me of a statement by a campaign spokesman, not the candidate, which has EVER had a measurable effect on a campaign, maybe I’ll believe what a guy no one ever heard of previously (unless they read McCain) says on MSNBC in June means something.

I salute AP, I would have expected him to be one of the hand-wringing worriers, as usual.

Wow, people are pretty strict around here. Not allowed to criticize Romney. This site is also a place for conservatives to vent. Complaining about Romney here isn’t going to change Nov 6 in any way. It’s not the freakin’ butterfly effect, fer cryin’ out loud. People here who are annoyed by him will continue to be so. Others who love the guy will continue to do so unless he gives them reason to do otherwise.

Wow, people are pretty strict around here.
Dongemaharu on July 6, 2012 at 4:47 AM

Lucky for the rest of us, they don’t matter. The only ones who do (those who can actually ban us) expect us to moderate our language, not our opinions. I will continue to believe that Mitt’s past could well be prologue and harp on same. Yet I will vote for him because Obama is crushing the very heart of America and must be stopped. I am of the opinion that we get rid of Turdboy first, then we worry about dragging Mittens to the right or ridding the country of him at the earliest possible opportunity. For now, I am focused on job one.

It’s a penalty and it has taxes built into it. So everyone STFU. I can’t believe the MSM has got Republicans all tied up in knots over this. I’m shocked at how stupid Republicans can be sometimes and how they let the MSM push their buttons and define the debate. GROW UP.

There is no flip flopping and if you can’t figure it out then you are part of the stupid crowd that Obama is playing to because the smart ones have already said “stick a fork in him”.

Amjean on July 6, 2012 at 12:06 AM

The problem is Mitt had to go out and personally contradict his senior advisor. That doesn’t demonstrate a well oiled campaign machine. And that is scary when Mitt is our only hope for bouncing Obama back to Chicago.

Spliff Menendez on July 6, 2012 at 12:11 AM

A little blip in the campaign – so what? Get over yourselves!
Some of you want Romney to go to the principal’s office to get his
punishment! It is ridiculous.

Romney is the presidential candidate and he came out with his
statement. I don’t care what his “adviser” came out and said.

Debbie “snotnose” on the other side has said many things that were
disputed by Obama and his staff. “Carnival Carney” has put his
foot in his mouth more times than not when it comes to Obama’s
positions.

Remember the 2008 campaign and McCain? Perhaps he should have
disagreed with his staff’s opinions from time to time instead of
acting like his staff’s puppet.

To some of us who have been voting Republican fairly consistently at least since Bill Clinton became President, NEITHER Romney NOR Obama is credible as someone who will govern well or even roll back the damage done already.

Some people need to deal somehow with the fact that fear of what the Democrat incumbent might do in a second term might not work on everybody this time, especially if the Republican is yet another moderate who isn’t likely to undo anything those scary Democrats have done already. It’s amazing: We’re expected to be properly terrified of a second Obama term, but the GOP has chosen as its candidate someone who is unlikely at best to even undo anything Obama has done in his first term and who is progressive enough that he might roll out his own super-expensive government programs on top of the ones we have now.

And for the record I think Romney is still a progressive. I don’t believe that Romney at age 60 suddenly had an epiphany and moved to the right after deciding to run for President. This guy CHOSE to run for governor in a progressive state in which he didn’t even live; he announced when he ran that he was a progressive and was running as a Republican only to make it easier to get elected; he governed as a progressive. Since then, though, he has been trying to pass himself off as a conservative but apparently doesn’t even understand how a conservative thinks.

Romney is another Dede Scozzafava and even many of those who are prepared to hold their noses AGAIN and pull the lever for the non-Democrat with no real hope of results AGAIN realize this. But some of us are sick of holding our noses and have come to realize that we don’t really have a candidate this year. Fear of Tweedledum isn’t going to make everybody vote for Tweedledee, and a few of us wonder if it wouldn’t be better to get through the four years remaining to the progressive we have already than to risk being saddled for eight years with a new and more energetic progressive.

I honestly don’t know why some conservatives can’t get over Massachusetts. It’s a state full of kooky liberals, run by Democrats. Romney somehow got himself elected Governor there. They wanted socialized medicine and created a law for it. He signed it. Big deal…let them pay for it and be happy.

Nationwide, it doesn’t work. Romney agrees with me on this and says he’ll sign any repeal bill presented to him on Day One. Something like 55% of voters agree with his position.

Obama says it is great and he’s proud of it. 180 degree polar opposites. Let’s vote.

Obamacare is great for getting conservatives riled up; Romney needs to stay away from saying anything except “Obamacare sucks and I will repeal it.” That way, conservatives can stay mad at Obama.

As for low information voters, what they really know is that the economy stinks. Regardless of whether “the economy” is itself responsible for their own unemployment or the woes of their friends, they feel that things have gone wrong, and Romney is best served letting conservatives fret about Obamacare while he harps on the economy.

It seems to me that if the government passes a bill that a) requires me to spend money on something, or b) requires me to pay money to the government via penalty, fee, or direct tax, both a and b are taxes.

Making the choice to do A to avoid B is still a tax, and not doing A and paying B is definitely a tax.

To answer Allahpundit’s title (which has little to nothing to do with the post:It shows Mittens has no clear, concrete concept of the issue, which strongly suggests he has no clear, concrete notion of determining a way to fight it.

To answer Allahpundit’s post:While voters are much less likely to react (positively or negatively) to the notion of a “penalty” which affects in theory 1% of Americans…
…voters are much more inclined to react (negatively) against being forced to pay taxes (the word *without* quotes) to pay for health insurance of that 1% who can’t/won’t pay for it themselves.

Guess what . . . your candidate is not going to be nominated, no matter who he or she is. Throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to do you any good. People will quit reading anything you post.

It has nothing to do with “shutting up” . . . it has to do with getting Obama out of the White House with someone who is smart, articulate and has worked with an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled legislature and reduced government expenditures. Before you judge him as harshly as you do, maybe we should give him a chance. Gov. Romney wasn’t my first choice. I first wanted Pawlenty, then Perry. But now that I know more about Gov. Romney he has my 100% support.

Voter from WA State on July 6, 2012 at 12:56 AM

What part of “I’m voting for Mitt” is lost on you? I can vote for Mitt and still criticize the ever-living shit out of him, right? I acknowledge he’s my only realistic choice, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Romney doesn’t have 100% of my support. He’s not conservative. Period. We don’t have a conservative choice. So he gets my vote. Not a single word of praise unless he does something to deserve it, and absolutely no money pre-convention. My support for him is cautious and qualified. And if you don’t like it, tough.

By the by, anyone able to tell me what “pro-Obama” position I’ve taken? Or what makes you think that Mitt has moved on from the days he considered himself “progressive?”

I’m not sure how anyone who is even considering voting for Romney can, with a straight face, call themselves a conservative.

CoffeeMan on July 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Because the conservatives are out of other options you mental midget.

Palin quit and didn’t come back, the Cain Train derailed, the mere mention of Ron Paul shorts out their CPU even more than usual, and Gary Johnson has no time in which to gain name recognition.

Frankly it makes me sick and scared that the right-wing wasn’t able to come up with anyone better than Wrongney. Christ on a crutch, a ham sandwich should’ve been able to run against Obummer, but after 4 years of his misrule THIS is all you’ve got left standing?

The liberals will never be seriously challenged again if conservatives don’t get their act together and fast.

I’m not sure how anyone who is even considering voting for Romney can, with a straight face, call themselves a conservative.

CoffeeMan on July 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

When you can square the circle of voting for a third-party candidate who has no realistic chance of winning against Obama, talk to me about the definition of “conservative.” I’ve been through this only about million times aready, it seems: Mitt Romney does not share my values and principles. But even if a small percentage of the electorate votes for neither of the major party candidates, we don’t have the choice of a “President Neither.” The one thing I feel comfortable to say for sure is, it will be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. And God save us, I really don’t want Barack Obama, rombot protests to the contrary.

Romney just acknowledged the decision made by the Supreme Court while Obama, who has violated the Constitution no less than 12 times during his time as President, continues to defy the court he successfully threatened and intimidated before this decision was made by declaring his ‘mandate’ is NOT A TAX.

I give Romney credit for acknowledging the decision made by the Supreme Court, no matter how heinous that decision was, and for showing he intends to abide by it.

In a case of ‘wanting your cake and eating it, too’, Obama is happy his ‘Legacy’ piece of legislation survived but is now trying to convice Americans he didn’t really do what he is getting credit for – instituting the largest tax in US History – 21 new taxes, 12 directly impacting the Middle and Lower Classes.